In 2008, Barack Obama ran against the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive, unilateralist war. His presidency, he assured us, would be different. And once he took office, it certainly was. One "apology tour" and Nobel Peace Prize later, the Obama Doctrine, such as it was, consisted of telling everyone and anyone that America was winding up its wars, pulling down its military tents, and going home — where it was going to be "renewed," "rebuilt" and so on. His National Security Strategy said it all: "Building at home, shaping abroad." Spot the focus; spot the window dressing. "Shaping" is a military term of art referring to anything other than actual warfare.

It was awfully darn close to Barack Obama promising never to do another Iraq, another Afghanistan — another anything.

And now we're bombing Libya.

So what happened?

Time's Swampland blog would have you believe that Obama went to war simply to preserve America's future right to go to war:

Instead, interviews with senior administration officials show that the rehabilitators convinced Obama to go to war not just to prevent atrocities Gaddafi might (or might not) commit but also to bolster America's ability to intervene elsewhere in the future.

With all due respect to whichever White House minion peddled that rationale to Massimo Calabresi, that is the dumbest excuse for a war that I've ever heard. You don't risk US service lives just to prove a theoretical point about the future. You risk them when the perceived gains significantly outweigh the likely losses. You risk them when the precedent you establish is powerful enough to prevent future wars — not just gain you access to them. And you also don't screw around with the American public in such a cynical way.

Everyone on this planet knows damn well that America can intervene, for all practical purposes, whenever and wherever we want. We've got the only the military force in the world capable of this, and we've entered — literally — dozens of countries against their will or without their permission in the past couple of decades for all sorts of well-justified reasons.

We don't need no stinkin' badges!

Or blue helmets.

Moreover, for Obama's people to offer up such nonsense is especially egregious and disrespectful to the man himself. Whatever you want to say about our ultra-cool president, as a commander-in-chief, he's got no problem killing people to keep America safe. Obama has sent our piloted aircraft, ground forces, special operations forces, and drones to hunt down and kill our enemies by the thousands. And our forces pretty much go wherever we want them to go. We don't ask permission to enter your space; we let you know where to pick up the bodies afterwards.

So no, we're not bombing Libya to "bolster America's ability to intervene elsewhere in the future." That's just Team Obama polishing the man's image as a statesman, or — more pointedly — trying to make him look tougher before the American than he usually appears.

We're also not bombing Libya to establish some open-ended doctrine about toppling evil leaders when they reach the point where the only way they can stay in power is to use force against their own people. That's actually the Samantha Power Doctrine, for the National Security Council official and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of a book on America's past weak responses to genocide.

Despite the best of intentions, that argument is fanciful beyond belief and won't last a minute, because you can stay in power, even if you kill your own people, if, for example, you have nuclear weapons. You can also do it if you're strong enough as a regime to resist our bombing and your country is too big for us to handle in any post-strike, America-is-going-to-make-you-step-down occupation. You can also kill your people (with our guns, thank you very much!) if you're a crucial oil power. So let's be clear about this: China does this tomorrow and we do nothing. Iran did this in 2009 and we did nothing. Saudi Arabia does this right now — by proxy in Bahrain — and we're doing nothing. There is no Power-cum-Obama Doctrine — nor should there be.

The real Obama Doctrine that's emerging here isn't the "engagement" bit that we were sold during the campaign, nor has the I'll-talk-with-anyone promise been replaced with a I'll-bomb-any-leader-who-kills-his-own bravado. As stipulated above, the man has the cojones when it comes to wasting bad guys, but that's not the point here.

What really stands out as an embryonic Obama Doctrine are his negotiating tactics on the employment of US force, because they are the exact opposite of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption and unilateralism. Obama basically said to the world that America will not commit its troops to a situation like Libya unless damn near everybody signs off on it first: the United Nations Security Council, NATO, the Arab League, the Africa Union, the Tuesdays with Morrie Bookclub — everybody.

I have to admit, when the administration first trotted out that demand, and everybody on the list pointed to the next body over and said in effect, "Well, I won't say yes until So-and-So says yes too!" I was pretty convinced this thing had no chance in hell of happening.

Then I started seeing the genius of Obama's approach, and I'm talking Brer Rabbit-genius.

By waiting on virtually every imaginable stake-holding nation to sign off — in advance — before unleashing America's military capabilities, the Obama administration recasts the global dialogue on America's interventions. All of a sudden it's not the "supply-push" US intervention into Iraq, where it's all "this is what America is selling and if you don't like it, get out of the way!" Now, we're back to the type of "demand-pull" crisis responses by the US in the 1990s, where the world (aka, "international community") asks and America answers.

Moreover, by limiting US military participation up-front, the White House forces further "demand-pull" negotiations by our more incentivized allies (Vive la France!) and nervous neighbors as the intervention unfolds. That way, every step Obama takes can be justified in terms of the facts on the ground and how they make the rest of the world feel, while our cool Vulcan simply mutters in reply, "Fascinating."

But again, the key revelation: This negotiating tactic does an excellent job of uncovering the actual global demand out there for America's intervention & stabilization services. A lot of anti-interventionists (and sheer Bush haters) want to pretend that's a myth and that there is no such demand for the American Leviathan, but the truth is, there's plenty of demand out there. The question is US bandwidth, which Bush-Cheney narrowed considerably.

Obama's approach — so long as it works, of course — is true genius. At a time when the US seeks to rehabilitate its national security image abroad, Obama's Brer Rabbit shtick effectively de-ideologize US participation — essentially "laundering" our motives through others. Plus, it has the virtue of sheer transparency — as in, what you see is what you asked for.

If President Obama can pull off Qaddafi's departure at minimal cost in blood and treasure, while sensibly avoiding any America's-in-charge! stupidity when it comes to the reconstruction aftermath, this intervention could end up being THE model for how you do it right.

And honestly, in this strategist's book, that would justify a Nobel Peace Prize — big time. Because, once demonstrated in such a clear and compelling fashion, this approach could save countless lives down the road.